Loading...
Loading...
Found 16 Skills
Run a second round on a contested question by circulating each subagent's independent proposal to the other authors and asking for structured pros and cons, then synthesize. Use this skill whenever you have multiple independent proposals or opinions on a contested decision — architecture tradeoffs, code review disagreements, design choices, competing root-cause theories — and want sharper analysis than you'd produce by synthesizing alone. Pairs naturally with the council and research skills; reach for it liberally whenever proposals diverge.
Grill the user's plans, decisions, or ideas layer by layer. Use this when the user wants to stress-test their thinking or uses any 'grill' trigger phrase.
Practical application guide for HUMMBL's 6 transformations (Perspective, Inversion, Composition, Decomposition, Recursion, Meta-Systems). Includes when to use each transformation, combination patterns, analysis templates, output formats, real-world examples, and common pitfalls. Essential for applying mental models effectively in problem-solving and analysis.
When facing architectural decisions, technology choices, or strategic trade-offs, present options as a structured comparison and require explicit trade-off acknowledgment before proceeding. Triggers on words like "should we", "which approach", "what's the best way", or when Claude is about to recommend one approach over alternatives. Never present a single recommendation without showing viable alternatives first.
Challenge ideas, assumptions, and decisions by playing devil's advocate to identify weaknesses and prevent groupthink
Use when a selective defect needs IS/IS-NOT difference analysis or a consequential option choice needs must/want weighting and adverse-consequence comparison.
Run a simulated meeting with multiple expert personas to analyze a subject from diverse perspectives, reach a decision, and propose a solution before implementation. Optionally posts the meeting analysis to a linked GitLab or GitHub issue.
Cross-meeting archaeology skill. Consumes multiple meeting recaps (or raw notes) over a period and surfaces patterns invisible in any single meeting. Shows how decisions evolved, who has been saying what, where threads are stalling, and where contradictions have emerged. Produces a plain-text timeline, themes with confidence markers, stakeholder position tracking, consolidated decision list, contradiction flags, open items, narrative summary, and prioritized follow-ups.
Apply dual-process theory to diagnose whether judgments arise from fast intuitive (System 1) or slow analytical (System 2) processing and identify resulting cognitive biases. Use this skill when the user needs to explain why quick decisions go wrong, design choice architectures that account for cognitive defaults, audit decision processes for heuristic errors, or when they ask 'why do people misjudge probability', 'how to reduce snap-judgment errors', or 'when does intuition fail'.
Exposes Claude's reasoning chain as an auditable, decomposable artifact. Quick mode (default) gives assumption inventory + weakest-link in 2 stages. Full mode (--full) adds decision branching, confidence decomposition, and falsification conditions. Triggers on "왜 그렇게 생각해", "reasoning", "근거", "show your work", "어떻게 그 결론이", "trace", "판단 근거", "why do you think that".
Multidisciplinary analytical engine using Charlie Munger's latticework of mental models. Applies cross-disciplinary thinking (math, physics, biology, psychology, economics) to dissect life and business decisions. Use when user presents a decision problem, investment question, or complex analysis request requiring deep rational analysis.
Use when comparing multiple named alternatives across several criteria, need transparent trade-off analysis, making group decisions requiring alignment, choosing between vendors/tools/strategies, stakeholders need to see decision rationale, balancing competing priorities (cost vs quality vs speed), user mentions "which option should we choose", "compare alternatives", "evaluate vendors", "trade-offs", or when decision needs to be defensible and data-driven.